Expectations for Hardy....

[OpIv37]

Check out this article that was linked on the BZ homepage:

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2008/5/5/472881/bills-wr-hardy-faces-lofty

I didn't see a thread about it, so if this is a duplicate, I apologize.

Long story short: he broke down the production of the top few receivers in each of the last 5 draft classes. There were a few exceptions like Fitzgerald, but for the most part, receivers in their first year were not very successful. The author seems to think the Bills can get 4-6 TD's out of him.

This goes along with what I've been saying about our chances for this season. We simply didn't do enough with the offense. I like the Hardy pick, but the most likely outcome is that he'll produce 3-6 TD's in his first year because that's typical of receivers in their first season. The FO put him in the unfortunate position of being the only major addition to the 30th ranked offense.

I know some people have high hopes about Edwards and Lynch because it's their sophomore season and somehow it's become the conventional wisdom around here that players improve the most between Year 1 and Year 2. But that's not really the case. To take some recent examples, Lee Evans, John McCargo and Terrance McGee definitely improved in their second year. Keith Ellison, Kyle Williams, Donte Whitner and Ko Simpson definitely did not (although Ko gets a pass due to injury). In reality, some players develop in their second year and some players hit a sophomore slump. We won't know which one it will be for Lynch and Edwards until they hit the field.

On paper, the D is a lot better, so it's a shame that we're relying on improvement from 2nd year players (which worked so well last year :rolleyes:) and a rookie WR to fix the O. I expect a lot of low scoring games with more 7 minute 4th quarter drives by our opponents, just like last year.

[Philagape]

Hardy's impact should be measured not just by his own numbers, but also how much Evans' numbers are bumped because of defenses having to worry about someone else.

Of course, the offense's improvement really hinges on Edwards; it goes nowhere unless he takes the next step, but if he does that, it can be vastly improved. If he becomes the QB he showed glimpses of, that will make all the receivers, TEs and RBs look better.

As for Lynch, the line's run blocking needs improvement more than he does.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I can't disagree with this except the last part about long 4th Q drives. I find it hard to believe our defense will be as poor at stopping the run late in games as it was last year.

[PECKERWOOD]

38 receptions 500 yards and 6 TD's

[OpIv37]

I can't disagree with this except the last part about long 4th Q drives. I find it hard to believe our defense will be as poor at stopping the run late in games as it was last year.

I don't think it's going to be the D's fault- I think it's going to be the O's fault for not getting/keeping them off the field. But we'll see.

[OpIv37]

38 receptions 500 yards and 6 TD's

that's towards the higher end of reasonable, but still reasonable.

[FlyingDutchman]

OP, what moves would you have liked to see the Bills make offensively this offseason? I hear people say this, but without being vague, please give some names or moves that would have "done enough" as you say to make this team better. Ill give you tight end as one possibiliy. Im sure if we brought in some declining yet big name like Crumpler, everyone here would be happy. But I never hear a legit arguement for a move we should have made.

Sure I can agree we havent "done enough" to be contending for a Super Bowl, but we will without a doubt improve from last year offensively. I just have a hard time blaming the FO for not making a ton of moves offensively when i dont feel there was a lot of options.

[RockStar36]

that's towards the higher end of reasonable, but still reasonable.

If he grabs 6 touchdowns and also opens it up a bit for Evans and Parrish that will be a great addition.

[OpIv37]

OP, what moves would you have liked to see the Bills make offensively this offseason? I hear people say this, but without being vague, please give some names or moves that would have "done enough" as you say to make this team better. Ill give you tight end as one possibiliy. Im sure if we brought in some declining yet big name like Crumpler, everyone here would be happy. But I never hear a legit arguement for a move we should have made.

Sure I can agree we havent "done enough" to be contending for a Super Bowl, but we will without a doubt improve from last year offensively. I just have a hard time blaming the FO for not making a ton of moves offensively when i dont feel there was a lot of options.

well you do have a point in that there may not have been a whole lot for the FO to do- save the Crumpler example you already cited- especially since they devoted a lot of resources to the D. But regardless of whether we choose to blame the FO or not, the question still remains: what will make the offense improve over last year's #31 ranking?

Well, Lynch and Edwards have another year of experience, we added Teyo Johnson and Courtney Anderson, the OL had a year to gel, and we drafted Hardy. And we didn't have any significant losses in the off-season.

Those are facts- like it or hate it, blame the FO or don't blame the FO, but that's what we have. So the next question: Is this enough to truly improve the O?

Honestly, I see some improvement. Hardy, even in a limited role and with rookie mistakes, is a big target that we've been missing. RB's tend to peak early in their careers- Lynch looked good last year and with a full off season, I expect him to get better. I'm not sold on Edwards yet- I'd say I'm on the cautious side of "cautiously optimistic." When it comes to Anderson and Johnson, I think they're carbon copies of the other bargain-basement stopgap solutions we've been using at TE for at least the last 5 years.

But at the end of the day, I just don't think it will be enough. I bet we'll go up in offensive rank to 24 or 25, but the O still won't put up enough points or keep the D off the field. I could be wrong- hopefully I am because our D should be good so even mediocre offensive production could go a long way- but that's my opinion as of right now.

[ublinkwescore]

38 receptions 500 yards and 6 TD's

I'm gonna go 53 for 750-780 yards and 7 tds.

[ublinkwescore]

personally, I would have rather seen us part with our #1 for Boldin or Williams, and then draft a corner.

Or take McKelvin, and then offer our first next year for Boldin or Williams and then take Hardy in the second - we'd be so loaded at WR.

[RockStar36]

well you do have a point in that there may not have been a whole lot for the FO to do- save the Crumpler example you already cited- especially since they devoted a lot of resources to the D. But regardless of whether we choose to blame the FO or not, the question still remains: what will make the offense improve over last year's #31 ranking?

Well, Lynch and Edwards have another year of experience, we added Teyo Johnson and Courtney Anderson, the OL had a year to gel, and we drafted Hardy. And we didn't have any significant losses in the off-season.

Those are facts- like it or hate it, blame the FO or don't blame the FO, but that's what we have. So the next question: Is this enough to truly improve the O?

Honestly, I see some improvement. Hardy, even in a limited role and with rookie mistakes, is a big target that we've been missing. RB's tend to peak early in their careers- Lynch looked good last year and with a full off season, I expect him to get better. I'm not sold on Edwards yet- I'd say I'm on the cautious side of "cautiously optimistic." When it comes to Anderson and Johnson, I think they're carbon copies of the other bargain-basement stopgap solutions we've been using at TE for at least the last 5 years.

But at the end of the day, I just don't think it will be enough. I bet we'll go up in offensive rank to 24 or 25, but the O still won't put up enough points or keep the D off the field. I could be wrong- hopefully I am because our D should be good so even mediocre offensive production could go a long way- but that's my opinion as of right now.

You left two things out.

Fairchild is gone.

And they will have a full-time fullback to lead the way for Lynch.

[FlyingDutchman]

I agree we wont be lighting up the field, and I think 25th on O would be fair. Im hoping for an improvement to 20th or so. That would be a damn good improvement for a team as young and and inexperienced as ours.

[Philagape]

If the big factors go right -- Edwards improves, Schonert knows what he's doing, Hardy makes immediate impact -- we should be top 15 or better. Each of those variables has a decent chance IMO.

The O was doomed by bad quarterbacking, bad coaching, bad receivers. All three have hope now.

[HHURRICANE]

The Lions never got a call on Williams. They were looking for a trade and never got a call.

To me if the Bills were serious about improving the offense than a simple phone call to the Lions would have been a start.

OP is 100% right. One rookie WR isn't going to fix our prblems on offense.

[raphael120]

If I recall we lost a few games there by less than 3 points..if Hardy only puts up 3-6 TD's...those TD's in specific games can be the difference maker in those close games...and you take our last year 7-9 team and it becomes a 10-6 team if we won 3 of those close games.

I'm being cautiously optimistic too there, Op, but I think this is one of the first years in about...hell...6-7 years where I thought that on paper we had a pretty good team. We have a lot of pieces in place on defense at least, and our young offense could do pretty well. But it all comes down to QB play...if Trent doesn't gradually improve, it don't matter if we have Moss out there if Trent can't get him the ball. But I think the addition of Hardy on the field will help out tremendously because although a rookie, he's still a huge target and a threat. I think opposing teams will take Hardys A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT more seriously than Peerless Price. I think a lot of people will agree with me there.

[OpIv37]

You left two things out.

Fairchild is gone.

And they will have a full-time fullback to lead the way for Lynch.

There's a good chance Fairchild will be addition by subtraction- it's hard to imagine Schonert (or anyone for that matter) being more conservative and less intelligent than Fairchild.

We MAY have a full time fullback- I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills cut Viti and that other FB they signed and let Omon and Schouman share the FB/H-back duties (I don't think it's a good idea, but given past history, there's a good chance they'll do it).

[evol4276]

personally, I would have rather seen us part with our #1 for Boldin or Williams, and then draft a corner.

Or take McKelvin, and then offer our first next year for Boldin or Williams and then take Hardy in the second - we'd be so loaded at WR. except none of the teams were getting rid of those guys at all. media was saying they were. that was it. so more than likely we could have offered, and even might have, but noone was budging. hell the media could go out and say that peyton manning wants to be relocated and be lying through their teeth. unless an actual member of that team's staff says so, its a fabrication meant to stir up the sports talk. especially before the draft.

on the offense. we drafted 2 wr's and the te. everyone hates who we got cuz it wasnt mr davis etc (tho yes i wuld have liked). but you have to be on the declining edge of ******ation to sit here and say we didnt do a thing for our o. hell id love to have boldin, williams, or johnson, but why would we go with 2 #1's when everyone's so sure evans is gunna hightail the team next year. ok if we "cant please" one main reciever, im sure we culd for two tho.

there weren't many good targets in the FA. i wanted bryant, but he turned to be too much money anyways. but no we made this collossal mistake by not signing a #3 wr to #2 or even #1 money (i cant remember his terms, maybe someone could help me out?). no this team at wr has been stuck with the same talent at wr for years and bringing in another team's reserve, and this goes for most of the other wr's that were out there, wouldn't change anything with our team really. i think we went the better route and picked the best option for us, a tall, awesome college-producing product to give us a variety of depth at the position, instead of yet again filling us with mediocrity. thats this boards favorite word, mediocrity, yet from who upon reading that everyone wanted, they were fine with bringing in some other team's either non-producing or injury-riden waste. no i think we did better here, and yea theres always the possibility that it might take our wr a while to catch on. i'd rather try him out and see what happens rather signing one of the FA's knowing he sucks, and then watching him suck and ***** anyways.

[OpIv37]

except none of the teams were getting rid of those guys at all. media was saying they were. that was it. so more than likely we could have offered, and even might have, but noone was budging. hell the media could go out and say that peyton manning wants to be relocated and be lying through their teeth. unless an actual member of that team's staff says so, its a fabrication meant to stir up the sports talk. especially before the draft.

on the offense. we drafted 2 wr's and the te. everyone hates who we got cuz it wasnt mr davis etc (tho yes i wuld have liked). but you have to be on the declining edge of ******ation to sit here and say we didnt do a thing for our o. hell id love to have boldin, williams, or johnson, but why would we go with 2 #1's when everyone's so sure evans is gunna hightail the team next year. ok if we "cant please" one main reciever, im sure we culd for two tho.

there weren't many good targets in the FA. i wanted bryant, but he turned to be too much money anyways. but no we made this collossal mistake by not signing a #3 wr to #2 or even #1 money (i cant remember his terms, maybe someone could help me out?). no this team at wr has been stuck with the same talent at wr for years and bringing in another team's reserve, and this goes for most of the other wr's that were out there, wouldn't change anything with our team really. i think we went the better route and picked the best option for us, a tall, awesome college-producing product to give us a variety of depth at the position, instead of yet again filling us with mediocrity. thats this boards favorite word, mediocrity, yet from who upon reading that everyone wanted, they were fine with bringing in some other team's either non-producing or injury-riden waste. no i think we did better here, and yea theres always the possibility that it might take our wr a while to catch on. i'd rather try him out and see what happens rather signing one of the FA's knowing he sucks, and then watching him suck and ***** anyways.


You need to go back and read the thread more carefully.

The point isn't whether or not the FO screwed up or what we could have done differently (although Dutchman and I did discuss that).

The point is whether or not we did enough with the O to make a difference. Maybe the FO did everything they could with limited options, but the question is if it will translate to wins on Sunday afternoons.

IMO, it's not enough to lead to wins, and even you admit that it may take Hardy a while to catch on, so maybe you agree more than you initially realized.

[yordad]

Our front office could have, and should have done more. How much are we under our self imposed cash-to-cap policy? Now, I don't mind cash-to-cap. What I mind it not using it all. We could have done more. No question.

There were better TEs available. There were better FBs available. There was better WR depth available. There were better centers available. There were better CBs available. There were better LBs available... OK, most positions had an upgrade available. And if not, there was better available depth.

Now, I am not a Madden player. And, I know more then the average bear about how the cap works. So, obviously I am not saying we could have done better at every position. What I am saying is we could have done much better at one or two, or a little better at several.

Bottom line, we have a lot of cap space that seemingly will not be spent. Only a Lee Evans and Crowell extention could make this offseason be considered successful, IMO. Even if they do something creative like a 25 mil signing bones and 1 mil/yr over a 5 year span, 30 million dollar contract, just use it.

That said, I think the Bills could have used a serious upgrade at FB and TE. And, I believe they blew several chances to do it.

But, that isn't saying I don't think the offense will be much improved anyways. I don't think it can be worst, and I do think Hardy will have a ripple effect. Also, I think the subtraction of Fairchild could be a huge addition.

Hardy- 58 catches, 754 yards, 8 tds.

[The Jokeman]

I think we should expect the lines of what Sidney Rice did last year in Minnesota. As to me him and Hardy offer similar skills and similar chances with their respective teams. Rice put up 31 catches 396 yards and 4TDs in 13 games. If Hardy's able to play a full season then perhaps can look for 42 catches 478 yards and 5 TDs. Though to me I think Courtney Anderson is going to be a guy that could help things in the red zone as he has some height and possibly allow Robert Royal to stick to blocking of course I'm still not sure if he'll be any better then Michael Gaines was.

[evol4276]

You need to go back and read the thread more carefully.

The point isn't whether or not the FO screwed up or what we could have done differently (although Dutchman and I did discuss that).

The point is whether or not we did enough with the O to make a difference. Maybe the FO did everything they could with limited options, but the question is if it will translate to wins on Sunday afternoons.

IMO, it's not enough to lead to wins, and even you admit that it may take Hardy a while to catch on, so maybe you agree more than you initially realized. i was actually responding more to the thread in its entirety rather than your post itself. i agree with u there, i just am tired of hearing all the same stuff about getting people who we would hope would turn out ok for us via FA rather than developing one, where i feel we have a better chance of gathering a positive influence from. i gotcha on that one OP haha wasnt *****ing at u, actually i was more in a pissy mood in general when i posted that, i wasnt meaning for that to sound harsh lol

[LABillsFan]

All Hardy needs is one big game, hopefully it'll be early in the season. He gets that game, attention is now spread out over the entire Bills Offense. One key is how Evans handles this. Evans should take a page from this

"Hardy is a seasoned guy," said Whitner. "He was the focal point of their offense at Indiana. Whenever you're on a football team and you're the focal point you're going to get double teamed and triple teamed. So he's used to that."

"When he's singled up it's going to be a breath of fresh air because he's coming from a team where he was the only offensive threat," said Whitner of Hardy. "Now he's going to be singled up. We'll see what happens, but I believe he'll come in and make a lot of noise this year and give us that threat we need in the red zone."

Shut up Evans and play, you can't complain about not having help and then getting all uppity when "you're help" is/will be contributing.

[OpIv37]

i was actually responding more to the thread in its entirety rather than your post itself. i agree with u there, i just am tired of hearing all the same stuff about getting people who we would hope would turn out ok for us via FA rather than developing one, where i feel we have a better chance of gathering a positive influence from. i gotcha on that one OP haha wasnt *****ing at u, actually i was more in a pissy mood in general when i posted that, i wasnt meaning for that to sound harsh lol

understood- no worries.

I agree that I'd rather develop players than sign FAs.... it just takes so damn long, and then we end up losing guys like Clements..... I think the whole philosophy has to be to develop the core of the team with cash to cap, so when we're almost there we have the money to go nuts in FA and bring in the missing pieces to get us over the top. It might put us in cap jail for a few years, but if it gets us a SB, a few years of suffering will be worthwhile.

[OpIv37]

Our front office could have, and should have done more. How much are we under our self imposed cash-to-cap policy? Now, I don't mind cash-to-cap. What I mind it not using it all. We could have done more. No question.

There were better TEs available. There were better FBs available. There was better WR depth available. There were better centers available. There were better CBs available. There were better LBs available... OK, most positions had an upgrade available. And if not, there was better available depth.

Now, I am not a Madden player. And, I know more then the average bear about how the cap works. So, obviously I am not saying we could have done better at every position. What I am saying we could have done much better at one or two, or a little better at several.

Bottom line, we have a lot of cap space that seemingly will not be spent. Only a Lee Evans and Crowell extention could make this offseason be considered successful, IMO. Even if they do something creative like a 25 mil signing bones and 1 mil over a 5 year span, 30 million dollar contract, just use it.

That said, I think the Bills could have used a serious upgrade at FB and TE. And, I believe they blew several chances to do it.

But, that isn't saying I don't think the offense will be much improved anyways. I don't think it can be worst, and I do think Hardy will have a ripple effect. Also, I think the subtraction of Fairchild could be a huge addition.

Hardy- 58 catches, 754 yards, 8 tds.

I with some of this but disagree on one major point: what will make this off-season be considered successful is if we win games.

[yordad]

I with some of this but disagree on one major point: what will make this off-season be considered successful is if we win games.Let me rephrase, "as successful as it could have been", but your right. Even if we win 10 games you might be figuring we could have won more had we done more. Maybe we could have gotten home field the first round. And, what if we miss the play off on the last game, again. But, like I said, even extending our own guys would do. In fact, I would prefer that.

[jamze132]

I expect both Evans and Hardy to at catch at least 3-5 balls per game a piece. I really don't think that is asking too much is it? Obviosuly I expect a few more from Evans. That translates to at least 48 catches for the season. I seriously don't think that is that much considering the QB will probably throw between 25-30 passes per game.

[casdhf]

ROY, OMVP, Super Bowl MVP and NFL Man of the Year.

[Pinkerton Security]

I am expecting that if Hardy starts on the left from day 1, he catches 50 balls for around 600 yards. If Reed begins the year as the starter, Hardy's numbers should dip down into the 40's or 30's. However, I agree with the sentiments that if he can do something big sometime early, it will force the D's to respect him and will affect the entire scheme.

[Dr. Lecter]

There's a good chance Fairchild will be addition by subtraction- it's hard to imagine Schonert (or anyone for that matter) being more conservative and less intelligent than Fairchild.

We MAY have a full time fullback- I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills cut Viti and that other FB they signed and let Omon and Schouman share the FB/H-back duties (I don't think it's a good idea, but given past history, there's a good chance they'll do it).

The difference is they have stated that they are changing their approach and want a fulltime FB on the roster. They have not done that in the past.

[raphael120]

If they don't sign Evans long term, I will see that as a major blunder for this offseason. I think it will take away most of the progress we've made in this offseason.

[PECKERWOOD]

If they don't sign Evans long term, I will see that as a major blunder for this offseason. I think it will take away most of the progress we've made in this offseason.

Losing Lee will set us back another 5 years or so, in my mind.

[yordad]

The difference is they have stated that they are changing their approach and want a fulltime FB on the roster. They have not done that in the past.Yep. Then they passed on one of the best all around TEs in the draft, and the best FB in the draft to pick an H-back.

[jdbillsfan]

Losing Lee will set us back another 5 years or so, in my mind.


So we'll be 6-10 instead of 7-9?

[PECKERWOOD]

So we'll be 6-10 instead of 7-9?

Bills without Lee = 4-12

[baalworship]

If he beats Ernest Wilford's numbers in Miami I will be very happy.

[justasportsfan]

Check out this article that was linked on the BZ homepage:

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2008/5/5/472881/bills-wr-hardy-faces-lofty

I didn't see a thread about it, so if this is a duplicate, I apologize.

Long story short: he broke down the production of the top few receivers in each of the last 5 draft classes. There were a few exceptions like Fitzgerald, but for the most part, receivers in their first year were not very successful. The author seems to think the Bills can get 4-6 TD's out of him.

This goes along with what I've been saying about our chances for this season. We simply didn't do enough with the offense. I like the Hardy pick, but the most likely outcome is that he'll produce 3-6 TD's in his first year because that's typical of receivers in their first season. The FO put him in the unfortunate position of being the only major addition to the 30th ranked offense.

I know some people have high hopes about Edwards and Lynch because it's their sophomore season and somehow it's become the conventional wisdom around here that players improve the most between Year 1 and Year 2. But that's not really the case. To take some recent examples, Lee Evans, John McCargo and Terrance McGee definitely improved in their second year. Keith Ellison, Kyle Williams, Donte Whitner and Ko Simpson definitely did not (although Ko gets a pass due to injury). In reality, some players develop in their second year and some players hit a sophomore slump. We won't know which one it will be for Lynch and Edwards until they hit the field.

On paper, the D is a lot better, so it's a shame that we're relying on improvement from 2nd year players (which worked so well last year :rolleyes:) and a rookie WR to fix the O. I expect a lot of low scoring games with more 7 minute 4th quarter drives by our opponents, just like last year.


this is why I think it's funny how some people think we should trade Lee. If Trent does not end up gaining chemistry with Lee, I expect another long season offensively and once again our D as bad as it was last year, is gonna have to carry the O again.

If Hardy can catch for 700 yards . That would be awsome.

[Mahdi]

well you do have a point in that there may not have been a whole lot for the FO to do- save the Crumpler example you already cited- especially since they devoted a lot of resources to the D. But regardless of whether we choose to blame the FO or not, the question still remains: what will make the offense improve over last year's #31 ranking?

Well, Lynch and Edwards have another year of experience, we added Teyo Johnson and Courtney Anderson, the OL had a year to gel, and we drafted Hardy. And we didn't have any significant losses in the off-season.

Those are facts- like it or hate it, blame the FO or don't blame the FO, but that's what we have. So the next question: Is this enough to truly improve the O?

Honestly, I see some improvement. Hardy, even in a limited role and with rookie mistakes, is a big target that we've been missing. RB's tend to peak early in their careers- Lynch looked good last year and with a full off season, I expect him to get better. I'm not sold on Edwards yet- I'd say I'm on the cautious side of "cautiously optimistic." When it comes to Anderson and Johnson, I think they're carbon copies of the other bargain-basement stopgap solutions we've been using at TE for at least the last 5 years.

But at the end of the day, I just don't think it will be enough. I bet we'll go up in offensive rank to 24 or 25, but the O still won't put up enough points or keep the D off the field. I could be wrong- hopefully I am because our D should be good so even mediocre offensive production could go a long way- but that's my opinion as of right now.
Anderson and Teyo are nothing like the TEs we have had in here lately. Both of these guys are very good athletes and are both 6'6 with good hands. They have both played on bad offensive teams before coming here and although we were a bad offensive team last year, our additions along with what we already have should make this a complete offense. Not top 5 or anything but middle of the pack at least.

[Mahdi]

I think we should expect the lines of what Sidney Rice did last year in Minnesota. As to me him and Hardy offer similar skills and similar chances with their respective teams. Rice put up 31 catches 396 yards and 4TDs in 13 games. If Hardy's able to play a full season then perhaps can look for 42 catches 478 yards and 5 TDs. Though to me I think Courtney Anderson is going to be a guy that could help things in the red zone as he has some height and possibly allow Robert Royal to stick to blocking of course I'm still not sure if he'll be any better then Michael Gaines was.
Didnt Reed have something like 450 yds this year? I would be disappointed if Hardy with all his skills did no better than match Reed.

[The Jokeman]

Didnt Reed have something like 450 yds this year? I would be disappointed if Hardy with all his skills did no better than match Reed.
Prepare to be disappointed then, I think my predictions are very realistic. For the record Reed had 578 yards receiving.